03/30/2026 Work Study/Special Governing Board Meeting

001It is 4:00 p.m. on Monday, March 30th, 2026. I officially call Liberty Elementary School Governing Board special meeting to order. We are in the Jerry Rohrer District office and have four board members present. Board members Zimmerman, board member Kenyon, board member Siri and Feeney, and myself, board member Schmidt. We can move on to 1.2, the Pledge of Allegiance. Ms. Zimmerman, would you lead us, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, moving on to item 1.3, the work study session. This is going to be led by members of the district office, including Becky Williams, Elaine May, and Ms. Michelle May. So, if you guys would like to take over, whoever's

002going to first, please. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. So, thank you for joining us tonight as we begin our budget work study session. I'd like to frame our discussions around our shared priorities and our collective responsibility to ensure alignment between our instructional goals and resource allocation decisions. Our budget is more than a financial document. It reflects the values we hold as a governing board and organization. The recommendations developed by the district and site leadership and by the guiding coalition represent a collaborative effort to prioritize systems and supports that promote clarity, consistency, and coherence across Liberty Elementary School District. Particularly in the areas of equity, leadership, and support. As we begin, I'd like to share a quote reference when the guiding coalition first convened in January. Not every good idea is fundable, but

003every idea deserves thoughtful consideration. So, tonight we will begin with Ms. Williams, who will share about the budget projections and calculations. Then Mr. Mann will share about staffing and enrollment. And then I will conclude us with budget prioritization. And we also have the salary schedule considerations at the end, which is also included as an agenda item 5.3. So, I will turn it over to Ms. Williams. You have in front of you um the budget attachments that we presented last meeting. As well, I have just updated those. Um can we bring those up? Yes, thank you. So, this is just an updated of what you saw um at the last meeting. I updated the with the March um numbers. Uh They just include any enrollment that we saw. I also doubled the um kindergarten coming into

004first grade. Then I also updated the uh budget balance carry forward as of March 19th. So, when all of that is said and done, the M&O budget reduction will be approximately $157,000. So, the next item is the calculations, page eight. If we can go And this is just You've saw this before, but I just updated all of the numbers in the budget balance carry forward as of March 19th. And the new uh RCL with the new ADM numbers. So, we're looking at a budget approximately 7 37,888. And then the next item is the uh projections for the staff increases. That stayed the same. Across the top, the one that's Yes, thank you. There's no changes there. That's just a carry. And then the next item that we were asked to present are the stipends. And

005if you will go to the first orange tab at the bottom. Thank you. If you want to go in your cells and kind of see how much was um spent in any area, I did put this so that you can filter on any of the different signing bonuses or any of the other stipends that you might want to look at. The next orange tab at the bottom. This is by school. Um Liberty, Freedom, and then if you scroll down it has all of the schools. And this is for the full year of 24-25. Because we have not had a full year yet this year, we wanted to be able to compare the two years. So, that's why we're looking at this one. And then if you go back to the top over to the right.

006Yes, thank you. This is a combined number of for the district. So, these are district totals. And then I also put the fund that they're being paid out of. So, that's what you'll see on that spreadsheet. And then today we took and did the one that says teacher stipend. We did elaborate on that, and that's a new spreadsheet that you have here tonight. I just want to ask a clar- Is that working? Just be louder. Uh I just want to clarify that one that we sent today. Those numbers are from the um '24 '25 school year. I believe so. So, I did not ask for the '25 '26 because '25 '26 is not finalized for the Okay. Yes. Any other questions? If not, I will turn it over to the next Mr. Mann. Okay. Uh

007I have uh a lot of questions or not a lot, but I have several and I also think the board should have um Mr. Mann, maybe some discussion about some of these items um so that we can ask questions and, you know, we have principals here that if we have questions. So, um when you factored um when you did the ADM, did cuz the district is recommending adding eighth grade to Loretta Zambro, which I'm not sure when that'd would appropriate for the board to discuss, but did you add that potential ADM into the ADM number? It's already there because those students already attend. They're at Blue and at the um Las Cruces, yes. Okay. Okay, I see what you're saying. Okay. Um I think that just one of the things that I want to point

008out, you know, uh in transparency to the public and for the board to keep in mind is that we're still making the transfer from DAA to M&O. We're still transferring $600,000. So, essentially, we're still living outside I say living out of our means of M&O, what we're allotted, and we're taking money from capital that I think we've all said we need, right? And we're going to be out of bond money. So, as we, you know, talk about budget reductions tonight, I think it's really important that the board keep that in mind because we need to try to get to a point where we don't have to do that. Um I think so. I'll speak for myself. I think we need to get to a point because I think we need those capital monies for you

009know, capital needs. Um So, and just for clarification, the when we need to reduce the M&O budget by 157,000, that does not include the encumbrance of the assistant sup of Ed Services. You're correct. Okay. So, I assume I'm going to speak for myself. I want that position. So, then we would need to consider reducing more to be able to have that position. The other open positions, as I like thought through this, I think we've paid them in different ways, right? We paid out Mr. McDonald, you know, we're paying a stipend to Miss May, we're paying you in replace of the finance director. So, I think those are going to be more of a wash, but that we have not paid anyone a stipend or anybody for that assistant soup. So, I think that, you know,

010when we think about what we need to reduce, I think we have to really consider that. Um Okay. So, on the on the colored sheet paper, it says lead stipends, $62,000. And that um is It says it's paid by grants. So, is that project momentum money that we're paying those lead stipends out of? This one here. The This Yes, that is project momentum funds. Okay. Um and do we know, are we getting project momentum funds next year? No, the grant is going to be ending 9:30. Okay. So, we will have no project momentum. Correct. Okay. So, that is another area that the board essentially needs to look at because um I'd have to look at a budget sheet, but I want to say it's like around $160,000. Um like a monthly budget Oh, for for

011project momentum. This past year, we got $162,000 for the whole year and a half. Okay. But, we're not going to have that money that we've used, right? So, these lead stipends either again, we're going to have to I don't know how we're going to find money that we already don't have, right? Okay. So, um the instructional coach extra duty um on the FY20 Well, it's on both for around $40,000. What is that for? What are we paying our instructional coaches extra duty to do? One of the principals will have to answer. I don't know what that stipend is for. Yeah. Oh No, we need a mic here. >> next to Mindy. Over here. Thank you. Um I believe that is for NTO and their extra contractual days, but that actually >> might Michelle Dew know

012from Ed Services. I think it's just their NTO time. Cuz those are not going >> I'm sorry, I was handing a packet to Dr. Dozier in the audience, so. >> The NTO is not in their contract, so I believe that stipend comes from there, but I don't know if there's anything else from there. Yeah, that would be a Ms. Williams question. It's not in their contract, I don't believe, right? There was three different stipends amounts. There was a PD, NTO, and then extra responsibility duties for all instructional coaches. So, in that funds there was the three different titles. Okay. So, it's it's on the like um the salary wage schedules. So, if you um Sorry. So, the instructional coach wage schedule has new teacher orientation at 1,000, leadership development at 1,000, and extra duty responsibility

013at 1,000. So, we only have seven instructional coaches. So, I'm just curious, how did we get to $40,000? It must have been extra duty days. So, we're paying them $1,000 a day when they're doing an extra duty? I'm sorry, I do not know that cuz I'm not in that HR position. I do And I'm sorry, that was before my time. I'm looking at Kendra, do you have any thoughts there on that? Ms. Goodyear, do you want to come up? Okay, you want to come on up? Thank you. Come on up to us, sit next to Mindy there. Thank you. I believe I do know that we have a contract that starts at a certain time, but it does not include NTO. So, there is a stipend for NTO. There is um Can I just ask,

014do you know if you're getting And this is I'm not like I'm not trying to single you out. I'm just trying to understand where it's coming from. And I'm wondering if they're in that year if we also attended professional developments that the coaches were sent to because of the new curriculums, if that was included in there for being paid for those times. That could have been it as well. Okay, so for when you say NTO, do you think you're getting $1,000 for the whole thing or per day? It's $1,000 for new teacher induction, so it's for those four days. It is not per day. Okay. So, um and I just want to be clear, like I did send this question ahead of time. So, I'm not like trying to surprise anybody, but when we're talking

015about seven people getting $40,000 and we're trying to find money, I'm just trying to understand how we got to that point cuz when I look at these stipends and and you're saying you're only getting a thousand for four days. And I believe there was another stipend that occurred afterwards because we were required to attend the leadership that happens at the end of the year which is also outside of our contract days. So we attend that with our principals and stuff as well. So there was another stipend for that week as well. Okay, so that would be 7,000 14,000. Okay. And so yes, if this was in the summer of 24, um you know, before 24 25. I mean, I'm not sure if it was even July of 24 and you know, June of 25 that

016was before I arrived. So we'd just have to go on what um I know Miss Williams you were here um just to try to figure out where that 40,000 came from. It could be from professional development. Thank you Kendra for explaining that they were not getting a thousand dollars a day, but for the the week. Yeah, I just I mean, I think these are some of the things though that we have to look at because, you know, we're going to have to find money and you know, it may seem like small amounts here or there, but we have to find it somewhere and that was something that stuck out to me. Um So just to follow up, I imagine that would not happen this year. So. Okay, but then I feel like if we want

017to count that, we have to know how much we're actually going to need to know what we can count as a savings. So I think that's what's difficult for me. And like some of these things on here I wouldn't necessarily count as like a stipend. Like I wouldn't count severance pay as a stipend. Um so that's where I have a little bit of a hard time. The leader in me Um that's 4,000. This is from doesn't seem to be on FY26. I don't know if the bill hasn't come, but is that paying for the program, or is that paying for PD for teachers? I believe that was PD cuz it was like $126. Um per person for 36 people. Okay. So you know, and then if you look at the teacher stipends, cuz obviously that's,

018you know, the biggest amount. Oh, I know. The other thing that I wanted to look at is the contract signing bonus. If we could go back to FY26, the colored ones, yep, and then totals um I think if you keep Yeah. And then if you go all the way all the way over, sorry. Okay. So, the contract signing bonus says it's coming out of M&O, but one of the things that the board voted on when we did our reductions last March was to pay that out of classroom site fund. I was looking at that today, and I don't see that on the list. Uh it's on >> the April 15th meeting, the budget prioritization. Okay. I'll go back and look at that because I was looking at all of those today, and we were going

019to go through and make sure all of those had been met. Yeah, those are some of my questions, too. >> Yeah. Yeah. So um you know, when you look when you look at the number, obviously the teacher stipends, you know, 366,000 and and last year it was more. It was like 450,000. Those That's the biggest the right? If we wanted to look at that. But that's also money that teachers count on for um you know, their pay. They're already counting on that money. Um and so you know, I think it's going to be difficult essentially probably for the board to reduce that because essentially we're like reducing someone's salary by doing that. But I think it would be very smart of the board to have a discussion about what could we kind of grandfather in

020and then maybe make changes for new employees so that we don't continue to put ourselves in this position because again, in the back of my mind, I'm always still keeping that that 600,000 we To me, we still have to find a way to get out of that. And so um you know, um President Schmidt, I don't know if you want to have a discussion about that or you just want people to share their thoughts right now. But I think we have to make some sort of decisions eventually tonight. So Um discussion is fine. If people have uh comments that they would like to make or discussion they would like to have right now. Uh if you would like to think on it, we can move on and then have time at the end. Um so

021that we can make sure we get through all three presentations. If we're doing about a half an hour each, we still have about 10 minutes for this one. So uh if there's other comments from other board members, please. Yeah, President Schmidt um so my thoughts on this and I've I've wanted to see these stipends for a little while and thank you administration for providing these. Um there's a few on here that obviously are are very helpful to help promote staff to grow. And they, you know, if they get certain achievements, right? They can earn that stipend. Um however, there's a number of them that I in my mind stipends were very stipend heavy. I mean, very, very stipend heavy as a district. Um and I do like what board member Zimmerman was talking about where

022we do have to look at these and see what we can do, possibly even do the grandfather thing. But my thoughts initially is what of these, and this is for the board and administration can comment on this and and provide feedback as well, but what of these stipends would seem most reasonable to roll into salaries? And just eliminate the stipend. And maybe the salary isn't quite as much as just adding the stipend in for new employees coming on. Um but when it comes to it, I mean I know why stipends are there, right? Um not just as an incentive, but they're also easy to strip away. They're hard. It's hard making that decision. It's an emotional decision, especially when staff are counting on it. But it's much harder for a board to go back and

023reduce somebody's salary than it is just say, you know, we can't have this stipend, and let's just cut it. Um so I understand why they're here. But with Ms. Williams, I think you uh well, somebody put in their email these stipends equate to about almost 3.5 million dollars. Yes. That is huge. Yes. That's huge. Um and so we really do need to have this conversation about what stipends should be allotted and which ones are just kind of above and beyond, which it's great when a district can give above and beyond, but when you're in the position we are as a district, we have to be very, very fiscally responsible for with this stuff. Um and growing pains kind of hurt sometimes, especially when there's not a lot of money going around. So, uh those are

024just my comments for the board to think about. Just a quick question. If we do, like Mr. Kenyon was saying, so one thing I could see being a problem with the but if we make it part of the salary, then the next year, if they're no longer doing that that job, but then they get a increase, it's going to take that stipend into the percentage increase, even though they're not doing it the next year. >> That's correct. My suggestion would be at this point for stipends is to put a committee together to evaluate these with the board's direction on their top 10 or 15 to evaluate, and then have a committee come back to the board um at an, you know, either during this year or next year, however you want to do it, and

025then really dive into what it takes to get that stipend, and then does it need to continue or is this something that could has been just rolled over from history, and no one's ever paid attention to stop it. So, that would be my suggestion. I agree with you both, too. Okay, go ahead. I agree. I feel like the stipend thing needs to be its own work study. It's It's too deep for us to do in the next 6 minutes. Yes. Just a couple of other things for the board to consider as we think about all all things is that some of these things have already been eliminated for this year. So, the 504 leads, not every school has them. Okay. Um because that was part of the reductions last year. So, schools with APs, principals,

026you can help me. I think you guys got to choose two of the four principals with APs. You got to choose two of the four um 504, gifted. Uh EL, maybe. But uh it's okay. We don't um But I'm just saying that this number has already been reduced. So, the athletic directors, these numbers only Liberty and Estrella are paying athletic directors because the APs, again, this was part of our reductions last year. So, I know you pulled these from last year. I'm just highlighting for, you know, the public and for the board that some of this stuff has has been changed. Um And so, we need to kind of keep that um in mind um as we do this. Um I think the problem, like I agree with everybody that, you know, we need to

027dive deeper into this, but the problem that we get into is that they're on the salary schedule that we are being asked to approve tonight. And so, you know, we're kind of again just rolling the problem, I guess, into next year. Again, we're going to be in the same sort of position. Um So, you could approve the salary schedule excluding all stipends if you would like. And that way, we would have time in the next 3 months to maybe go into it a little deeper. >> Any other further discussion on this right now? All right, then I think we can move on to the next item, which I think is Mr. Mann. If you would like to go ahead. President Schmidt, Liberty Board. Um I was tasked with helping to provide the staffing plan. The

0282026-27 staffing recommendations are result of a structured multi-phase process designed to ensure data-driven recommendations across all eight campuses. Transparency and methodology and decisions grounded and verified enrollment data. Staffing decisions affect real people, educators, students, and families. The district approaches this process with seriousness, care, and a commitment to fairness. What follows is a summary of the methodology, uh consultations, and guiding principles that shape the final recommendations presented to the Liberty Board. Phase one, understanding the landscape. Before projections or recommendations were uh developed, district leadership conducted a review of historical staffing practices. Due to personnel transitions of recent, uh prior processes were not fully documented or consistently applied. The district took deliberate steps to research previous staffing cycles and evaluate the implications of various approaches. This foundation was essential. Rather than simply inheriting past decisions, leadership worked

029to establish a clear, principled methodology rooted in consistency and data. Phase two, enrollment analysis and analysis and projections. Enrollment projections served as the primary driver of staffing decisions. A grade level roll up methodology was applied across all eight campuses. Each current grade cohort was advanced to the next grade level to the projected 26-27 placement. Graduating eighth graders cohorts were removed from head counts reflecting FTE naturally existing exiting the system, sorry. Incoming kindergarten cohorts were projected using registration trends and historical enrollment patterns. Sorry, the the incoming kindergarten was the same as this year's kindergarten. While final enrollment will not be known until students arrive in August, responsible planning requires action based on the data available. Waiting for So, sorry. Phase three, board approved class size bands and standard to to ensure equitability equity, the district consistently

030applied board approved class size bands as the benchmark for teacher to student ratios. Rather than making site-by-site exceptions based on history or preferences, the same standard was applied to every campus. This approach ensures no campus received preferential treatment. The rationale used for one campus is the same rationale used for all. Decisions remain objective and depersonalized. Consistency was a central quality safeguarded throughout the process. Phase four, FTE verification with HR HR payroll and business services. Accurate baseline data was critical. My team and the business services teams work directly with human resources and payroll to conduct a position-by-position verification of FTE allocations at each campus. This verification concerned who is employed at what FTE level FTE level and at what site. Phase five, campus-by-campus grade-by-grade review. With a verified FTE data, the enrollment projections in hand, the

031district conducted a detailed review of each campus school-by-school grade-by-grade and position-by-position. This is not a top-level budget exercise. It was a granular analysis that considered projected enrollment and required classroom sections, current certified and classified staffing levels, whether existing FTE met, exceeded, or fell short of projected needs, operational requirements beyond classroom instruction. Every campus has a unique context. That contest context was acknowledged and discussed. The objective was not to identify cuts, but determine the appropriate staffing levels aligned to projected enrollment and operational needs. Phase six, principal survey and stakeholder input. Principals, as instructional leaders closest to the daily campus operations, were asked to complete staffing surveys identifying priorities and needs for the 2026-2027 school year. This input was substantiative and meaningful. Every response was reviewed. Feedback was discussed during cabinet meetings. Requests tied directly to student

032outcomes and campus operations were prioritized. In many cases, the principal requests aligned with the enrollment data. Where they diverged, district leadership worked to understand the discrepancy and balance both professional insight and quantitative data. Phase seven, budget alignment with business services. Staffing must align with the fiscal reality. The executive director of business services, Becky Williams, partnered throughout the process to ensure recommendations were financially responsible. The goal was right-sizing, not overstaffing, not understaffing, calibrated to projected enrollment, and sustainable funding levels. Phase eight, budget prioritization guiding coalition. A district-wide budget prioritization process occurred concurrently, and this is what um Miss May will speak on later. Uh phase nine, cabinet review and superintendent consultation. Uh staffing recommendation recommendations were not finalized or the recommendations were not finalized by a single individual or department. Cabinet-level meetings were convened to discuss

033the staffing strategy, surface cross-functional perspectives, ensure organizational alignment. Uh interim superintendent Michelle May was consulted throughout the process. The plan reflects a collective professional judgment grounded in collaboration and transparency. Uh phase 10, the special circumstances, Loretta Zambro Elementary. Some campuses required additional review due to unique conditions. Loretta Zambro warrants that specific explanation. Zambro is expanding to include a seventh-grade program, uh the 2026-2027 grade with an eighth grade under discussion. This growth requires additional certified classroom FTE directly tied to enrollment increases that and applied using the same methodology used district-wide. Operational support. The campus serves the medically fragile students who require the consistent presence of an assigned nurse. When the office manager is absent, the front office lacks coverage, an operational gap for students serving serving high-need students. The The addition of a school secretary addresses

034this need and aligns with staffing models across the other district campuses. So, in short, I'm going to I'm going to um stop with the explanation here, but uh this staffing uh recommendations was uh carefully conducted by uh the entire district team. Um and I'm would be glad to uh take you guys through it. However you see fit. Would you like to Would you like to ask questions? I know you've all probably reviewed it, or would you like me to walk you through it? Uh do people have a preference? Go ahead. Um I mean, I I don't know if we could just ask questions about each school, if I could ask some general questions first, but I yeah, I I have questions in I don't for each almost every school, but I have some general questions

035if that's okay, Ms. Schmidt. Yes, please. Okay. So, my one of my first questions is there I see a lot of .5 positions. And I want to see I want to know how do you see that being actually implemented, especially at the junior high level? Because I feel like the .5s are give a misleading view of the class size. Because I don't think in junior high you can have a .5 unless you can explain to me how you see it implemented. So, so thank you. Um from a curricular perspective, the .5 I think it especially works in junior high. You have a teacher that teaches both seventh and eighth grade. Right? One full-time teacher, half their time teaching seventh, half their time teaching eighth. Okay, so are you believing that because again, in grade you're

036not dividing the grades. Okay, so I understand I think probably most of our schools teachers teach multiple grades. But you're we're talking about groups of kids. And so, if you you cannot divide half of a seventh-grade group and half of an eighth-grade group and put them in a class together because they're not being taught the same thing. Because kids move in groups. So, if you have 40 seventh-graders, okay, and you say, well, they can have 1.5 teachers, okay, but how are you dividing those seventh-grade students? So, my understanding, um and I think I I can tell that we have uh there's a gap in our our understanding. Um so, let's say we have a seventh-grade class and an eighth-grade class, and they're allotted three teachers total. Mhm. And it would be a 1.5 allotment and

037a 1.5. One of those teachers would split their time between the seventh and eighth-grade classes. Do you see what I'm saying? Yes, but I think you're not understanding >> not. Which is okay. I I apologize. >> Yeah, you want to try to word it differently? I may be way off, but what I maybe should understand what she's saying. So, mathematically it works, but scheduling it, how's it going to work? Yeah, that I'm a lot of a lot of times we do departmentalize. The the district does have a history of um of What do we call them? Classes? Combo? Combo classes. That's one option. Um But in junior high. In junior high, yeah. I We don't do combo classes in junior high. >> So, so if we had like, you know, um English and social studies

038and we had science and math and then we had another teacher do that. There's a way to rotate through that. If they wanted to specialize or departmentalize, that's one methodology. Um you know, and I and and so that looking at, okay, the context, we could have staffed it with the full FTEs. We chose to staff it with the half FTEs and creative scheduling um so that we would be able to get closer to those bands and provide the uh s- You go ahead. Okay. I I hear what you're saying, but you can't when you say that they're going to teach a section, like they can teach different grade levels, but when you talk about groups of kids, if you have 40 seventh graders, okay? Even if the teacher is teaching seventh and eighth, you can't

039divide half of those. You can't take 10 of those seventh graders out and say, "Oh, I'm going to put you with eighth grade." No, you can't. >> No. Okay, so it doesn't work. Like I guess what I'm going to ask then cuz it I don't think you're understanding is are you going to give principals autonomy to essentially Mhm. you gave them the staffing and are they going to be able to assign that teacher to groups of kids as they see fit? Yes, absolutely. I mean, they would have X number of FTEs and they would decide what to do with it. Now, when we band those up and we look at the colors of those bands, you know, then it's not going to look as nice as it looks now. So, we need to represent that

040in in probably multiple different ways. Right. Well, that's my concern though is cuz you can't divide children. You can't divide children. I feel like this document with all the point fives is is misrepresenting what the actual class sizes are going to be. So, I am going to pick on Astrea just because I know Astrea. Um my kids go there. I'm familiar with it. I'm sorry, Ms. Boris. Um but if you look at Astrea, Mhm. okay, you have given sixth grade 2.5 and eighth grade 2.5. If you give them because you're not going to take half of those sixth graders or, you know, 1/3 of them and combine them with eighth because yes, the teacher you hire, but the groups of kids are that are rotating around have to be in the same grade level. And

041so, the actual number is either going to be 35 in a class or 24 in a class because eventually, you're going to have to combine those FTEs for groups of children. Yes. Does that make sense? >> It makes sense. Okay. >> does. So, do you see how my concern because when you go to to bring us a classroom uh home room list in August, you're not going to see all this green. You're going to see red. You're going to see blue. >> You're going to see uh blue. Yeah, yellow. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, I just want to understand that if, you know, if we finish our discussion and the board kind of agrees with the allotment, Mhm. that then the principals have the autonomy to decide how to combine the point fives. Yeah. Yeah, it

042it was never the district's or or cabinet's um desire to structure it in such a way that would you know tie the hands of a principal. We we wanted to provide we wanted to write staff the FTE and give the principals the opportunity to staff their schools um as they should. Could I jump in real quick? Um I'm just going to ask for a quick demonstration. Uh Trisha, Holden, Melinda, will you come and stand right up here at the front real quick? Chop chop. Okay, so we have we're talking about one and a half teachers in seventh grade and a half teachers in eighth grade. So what that looks like is um Holden, will you step forward and Melinda, will you step forward? Okay, this is a seventh grade teacher uh ELA and math. Okay,

043Melinda and Holden is representing eighth grade ELA and math. So that's your one teacher one teacher. Now Trisha in the back is going to represent teaching seventh grade and eighth grade science and social studies. So here's how the one and a half looks or the half-time teacher. So looking at a straight here, you have a 2.5 sixth grade and a 2.5 eighth grade. So it'd be something similar. So the half-time teacher is the teacher of record in Australia since that's what we're just looking at. For sixth grade science and social studies and then for eighth grade science and social studies and that's where that half comes into play. So there is some autonomy of how this works. It has worked. We have used half-times. It is not ideal. It is never our wish, but there's

044current practice happening on our sites that allows for that half-time. Yeah, okay. But now you've had two seventh graders and two eighth graders. So in those seventh and eighth grade classrooms, you have 35 students. Because you can't divide kids. I understand they're teaching multiple grade levels. But I'm just making it clear that the class size is still high. And that and that's why the the figure here is a class average. >> Thank you. You guys can have a seat. >> but I understand. >> it's not really a class average. >> When when when you have 35 kids in your classroom, I get it. I get what you're saying, but statistic for um I I hear exactly what you're saying. I hear your concern and we'll address that. Well, I mean, I think we have to

045make hard decisions. I'm not saying that I'm not saying we don't have to do this. I just want it to be clear that when the homeroom list comes out, this is going to look different. It's not going to look as nice of an average. It is a little messy. Okay. So, you know, we we we are trying to cons uh staff conservatively. So, if we look through all of the half times here and we increase it on each of the school sites, we are going to not decrease FTEs, which is the ask from the board. We will be increasing. So, it is not it is not necessarily doesn't fit into a mold. We're just trying to do our best with current staffing allocations, etc. >> Right. I And I agree with that. I just I

046just wanted clarification that we're then giving the principals the autonomy and that it's understood that some classes are going to be bigger because again, you can't divide kids. I appreciate but the analytical clarity there, too. I really do appreciate it. >> Okay. Uh additionally, um after school begins and this is not ideal. We want to hire the best high-quality teachers that we can possibly get and right now is the time to find high-quality teachers. With that said, we do have a classroom site fund that will uh that's outside of M&O in the event that we have a high class size, we're able to add another teacher and FTE and not use M&O through this classroom site fund. So, we will be actively looking. And again, remember I said the caveat is we want the high-quality

047teachers now. We don't want to wait, but we have that ability in the event that we have class sizes get too high. Right, but we also need to be really careful because classroom site fund is not necessarily sustainable to just start adding teachers because then you have to keep doing it. So, we need to be cognizant of that. Okay, so So, there is classroom site reduction funds. That's a separate bucket. Oh, is that what you're referring to? Okay. If you want we can go through the schools if you want and then I'll ask questions at the end. Okay. Oh, sorry. >> Yes, please. Yeah, maybe you'll get to it, but I was looking at the the current was this one. Okay, and so I'm I just picked on Westar and added all up. So, FY

04825-26, right? So, it should be 38, correct? Not 36. Yeah, so this has been a I apologize, it's been a living document. >> Okay. Yeah, so it's a a draft document. Go ahead though. So, but are you going to go to each school individually you said? So, I can get to there. >> Yeah. All right. I'll wait till we get to that one. That's more of the questions. Okay, great. Okay, so let's start with Liberty and and remember this is a baseline staffing recommendation. There's budget prioritization recommendations that are going to be made later on. Um a couple of things that I know we're going to have questions about and I'll just address them early as was we decided as as a team that um schools should have a school secretary and an office manager.

049Um and that came from uh asked from the the the campuses and we were almost there anyways. And so adding a a 0.5 at Liberty, I believe, and then uh we had a personnel matter where we moved a 1 FTE from um Blue over to Loretta Zambro. But that that's the rationale behind some of that. I know I know there's going to be some questions about that. You You if you want we can get into it. Okay. Well, if we're going by school then So, Liberty currently has an office manager and a 0.75 um secretary. Is that what you're saying? Currently? Yeah, so we brought that up to a uh we were going to bring it up to a 1 FTE. Okay. And so what formula did you use to decide that that was needed?

050Because when you look at, you know, schools that have 800 students and schools that have 300 students, the need is not the same. A- And I I would agree that the need is not the same, but all schools um they have a need for that that administrative need when when uh the secretary is out, who's going to cover? And those those uh small schools have duties that need to be covered. And so we found we were almost there, we might as well, you know, have it have it even across the board because a lot of the small schools uh were having issues with not having those positions staffed. Yeah, and I think that, you know, if we go through it methodically, I think for me as a board member, it's important that it's it's equitable,

051not necessarily equal, because a school of 300 is doesn't have the same needs as a school of 800. And so, when we're looking at a finite amount of money, Mhm. it's hard for me to say, "Yes, they need this." when we're removing something from a school that has a lot more students, a lot more parents, a lot more staff. And so, just to say, "Well, we just want everybody to be the same." but everybody's needs aren't the same. A- And we agree. When we had these discussion, we believed that because we were almost there, we believed that it was like a base level of staffing that should happen at at each school. And really, it's an addition of 0.25 and an addition of what? 0.5? And yeah. Yeah. So. Okay. So, you know, I don't

052know if the board is going to make decisions, like I guess in the meeting when we do the budget, is when we'll like officially talk about it. But, my question also is how do you calculate how many Champs teachers each school gets? >> So, that that's a great question. It's not There's not a formula. Um we look at active number of sections. Like, so if there's uh the highest number of sections in a grade level is four, then they would get four Champs teachers. If the If the uh section was three, like for example, the highest section at Westar, I believe, is three sections. They have three Champs teachers. Blue Horizons, four. They have four Champs teachers so that they can that for that coverage. Okay. But, there is certainly uh like um ways to

053schedule that because the problem that I see is is we're I'm not sure how the Champs teachers at Liberty and Loretta Zambro are filling their day when they have 200 students and 300 students and uh schools that are double their size only have one additional Champs teacher. If we're looking at numbers, numbers of schools, numbers of kids that they're servicing. And again, we are we like kind of like Ms. Williams says, we shouldn't just keep doing things because we've always done them that way, right? And if we're having to make difficult decisions because of the um fiscal situation that we're in. To me, when you combine Liberty and Loretta, they're of a of maybe next year they're going to be at 550. So, to me, we should only have three Champs teachers between the two

054schools. Because that's 550 kids. They should be able to fit them in. Everybody else, schools of fit in. Because inevitably, they're seeing kids more. So, it's not really fair to children, right? They're getting more access to specials than other children just because they happen to be a small school. I hear what you're saying, board member Zimmerman. Um I some of those percentile comparisons sort of break down when we're starting a brand new school. If we went by the numbers and offered Loretta Zambra like a 0.5 Champs teacher, I don't know that that would be equitable either. Um We we want to provide our students or our students with like a base level experience. Sure. And that's that's what we made the determination, the recommendations to you guys, and we're at the will of the board,

055so. Okay. Okay, so as we go through that, we see that we are recommending a a reduction in one instructional teacher for Liberty. If we if we move on to Estrella Mountain, we can see that the the ratios from student teacher ratios is 1 to 24.3. It's a it's a solid ratio. We're recommending no changes at Estrella Mountain. Rainbow Valley, we can Sorry, I have a question, too. >> yes, sir. Okay, Brian, go. >> the mic. Okay, my question is you know, you said that you were recommending kindergarten be the same. So, this year at Estrella, they had two kindergartens and you're recommending three. Yeah, we that number was creeping up and Oh, I know. I have a I have a kindergartner in Estrella. So, so those are the staffing considerations that when we went

056through, we said that you know, that's a that's a borderline class, right? That if we're going to if we're estimating that the same are coming in and we you know, that was one of those considerations where it's like, okay, we should probably think about adding another kindergarten. Okay, but since it's kindergarten and we can watch that enrollment, would it be you know, again Yeah, it's it's at yellow. They're at 25 and the map the red would put them at 26. >> Yeah, we we we looked at that and and you know, we had to most strategically add positions where we thought they would most mostly be needed, but you're right, we could roll that back and we can watch it. Or it can be made >> into Yeah. Absolutely, yes, ma'am. And kindergarten is the

057most difficult to predict, so all we can do is just roll from current practice but to keep an eye on that kindergarten is the most difficult to predict. Most current numbers though there's already 24 so. In one class you have 24 enrolled. I didn't want to talk on the mic. We currently have 24 open enrollment applications for Estrella. There is a high desire to attend Estrella Mountain for kindergarten so that's what we're looking at as well. And so just the the caveat right and is that we want to be careful that we don't open enroll like three or four over that then forces us to hire a whole new teacher like when we get to Loretta that's going to be one of my questions is I you know it's really a tricky situation. Absolutely. Before

058we move on just real quick can you tell me what the ranges you are using for these colors cuz some of them are up in 30 and they're still green so like what I know I I can't find it. Yeah thanks. It's the board approved class size. And then the what was the board approved target 30? No. It depends on the class or grade. >> Yeah it the grades are different. Got you. I had the same question about kindergarten. So moving on to Rainbow Valley we're requesting or we're recommending all positions are unchanged and they have we have that one to 24.3 ratio there. Moving on to Westar, this was one of the more difficult situations. Uh, we're recommending uh, two classroom teacher reduction. Um, and uh, a 0.5 champs reduction. Um, and I know

059I'm going to get some questions here, so. If we look at the ratio, it's a 1 to 23.6. So, one question I have for this is we have the MAG students down here, which go into what is it? They push in? >> Social studies and science. So, did you add those into those classes? Did not. So, I really need to look at that before we talk about moving a teacher out of there. I That is uh, a consideration. We um, they're a part of the budget prioritization. They're early top on that because the the issue has been raised and we've had meetings about this, so that will be um, something that you guys will consider. Okay. I also think then, you know, if we're making that consideration, then we need to look at every single

060CCA class that pushes into regular ed because that's exactly what's happening in kindergarten in Astrea. We have 27 little five-year-olds in a kindergarten class. And and and so this is a scenario where yeah, it's like I understand this is a big deal that these MAG students and the CCA students are pushing in, but if we consider that across the board, uh, Where are you? We're in a situation. I mean, we should consider it. I guess I'm just saying like if we're going to do it, then I feel like we need to do it for the other, you know, populations that push in. But And for all schools. Yeah. >> Yeah, for all schools. Um, I'm just using Astrea as an example just cuz I have first-hand knowledge, that's all. Um, but I personally think the

061board needs to have a conversation about MAG in general because we are funding two full-time teachers and they are essentially only teaching English ELA and math to these students. They are pushing in for science, social studies, specials. And they have extremely low class sizes and we're paying them a $9,000 stipend. I don't find that to be equitable at all. And so I think the board needs to have a serious conversation about that because it's not equitable. Thank you. Um moving on to Freedom. We've got a 125.2 ratio um or and the recommendation is a staffing reduction of one. I had a question here um about APs. So now we have two schools that are going to fall under the threshold of kind of what we have established for um having a full-time AP. And I

062went back in board docs looking for the last time the board had this conversation and the last time I could find it was April of 2022. And people did not get a full-time AP until they had 700 students. And so when we look at what our other schools have we have schools that are at 550 and do not have an AP. They have a point two. And so we have Freedom that's projected to be at 475 and Rainbow that's projected to be at 560. Um which is what Astraea is essentially at. They might be at 540, don't quote me. Um so I think a consideration. Now, obviously these are Title 1 schools, right? And so that creates, you know, a different dynamic. But I think it's something that the board should look at if we're

063talking about, you know, if we're talking about treating, you know, using the same mentality, being consistent in how we apply things. Again, we're going to have to make hard decisions tonight because we have to balance the budget. Members of the movement, I'm just going to pass the mic over to Dr. Avila just to talk a little bit about Title 1 schools and the possible need for APs. The information that I would add, um, for Madam President, members of the board, would be when we talk about equity, we also keep in mind that we have two Title 1 schools. And so as we look at the numbers, we keep in mind, I understand there's a threshold, but also when we have schools with higher needs, they might have lower numbers, but the community has a higher

064need. So I would ask that we We also take that into consideration. Okay, let's look at, um, Las Brisas. And we have a 1 to 24.1 uh, ratio here and the recommendation is a uh, um, reduction of two classroom teachers. It's hard to say. This is uh, it's Um, I know that the question's going to come up uh, for DLI and uh, in these numbers and these classroom averages, we did not separate DLI out. Okay. So that, you know, that was my question again. I sent questions ahead of time so that you had the opportunity to process them. Um, so I think it's important that if we are going to support the program, that we have to look at how the numbers work because again, you can have 36 and, you know, non-DLI, I don't

065know what to call it. Um, be just because that's the way the sections because when you look at first grade, this was my question, do you have current kindergarteners that are leaving DLI to make two sections work? Um, that data data I don't have for you. So, So, it was anticipated that the site, um, Las Brisas would be able to, uh, you know, make it work, not easily, of course, to maintain the DLI program, but within this structure. Um, I know that there are situations where, um, there are even combo classes across the DLI. To Mr. Tree, will you come on up and speak to DLI, please? Good evening, governing board and members of the community. Um, our DLI program, as it is structured, would need to be considerably restructured, um, with the projected, um,

066staffing plan that is being proposed. And that we have two classrooms right now in kindergarten in the DLI program and one mainstream English only. So, we would either have to change the programming that we offer in terms of half day and the Spanish instruction and half day in English, or have some kind of a rotation where students are cycling through for Spanish content, but it wouldn't be for half the day. Because they are people. So, we As we identify. So, you know, I think it's an important conversation for the board to have. Like, this is part of your signature program. And so, um that was the only section that I saw that was an issue. Did you see a second grade level just so that the board is aware? Yes. So, this year to make

067the the adjust we made an adjustment and created a 3-4 combo class. Um so, we have in in third and fourth grade. So, we had some we had 12 third graders move into fourth grade and they were exposed to third and fourth grade content. Um and so, we're looking at our third grade numbers being I guess expanded. Our third graders rolling up to fourth grade this coming school year. Uh we would have 12 students who would be back with that group. So, our DLI program with only three sections in fourth grade, it would make it a little bit more challenging to have the Spanish for half the day because we have two classrooms currently in third grade that receive Spanish instruction. So, that's 40 students. You know, as I was like trying to compare the

068things I pulled up the home room list from March and I don't know how I never noticed this before, but it says that there are two sections of 3-4 combo. Is that right? Yes, we created those sections so that we could have DLI in two classrooms and English only in two classrooms. So, we had 12 third graders who moved into those classrooms to make our numbers doable so that we could run the DLI program. So, is that like six third graders in each section? Correct. So, both of those sections are primarily fourth grade? Yes. So with six um third graders in each of those classrooms. So, this year we're looking at do we promote some of them to fifth grade? A couple of the students are prepared for fifth grade content because we've assessed them

069in third and fourth grade um interim assessments and are prepared to take on fifth grade content and they're um mature enough and parents have requested that they move up to fifth skipping fourth grade, but we have 10 of them who are not prepared um for fifth grade at this time. So, they'll be rejoining the third graders that are moving up to fourth. Do these numbers reflect I'm trying to hear me. Do these numbers reflect the seventh graders possibly going to Loretta Zambro? Loretta Zambro? What about They do not not at this point. >> Okay. Not at this point. Um if we we've identified how many students We've identified 40 students that are within boundaries for Loretta Zambro um and we would work to um see if we could get them over there. So, this is

070if everybody stayed. Yes. So, that that you're you're right. That has the potential to bring down the the seventh grade numbers. Um Blue Horizons, so this was a really a a working document. If we look at Blue Horizons, we've got a 1 to 25.7. That's the highest student ratio dish average in the district. Um and the numbers that are here in yellow, we stopped the count last Tuesday on the 24th. Um and that's where this was frozen cuz at some point we had to freeze it. You know, this was kind of a working living document for a long time. Um and these were in the green, but they as of the last couple of weeks have have inched up into the yellow and they're of concern. And you know, to be honest, I think they're

071okay because they're at the first number of yellow. So again, we can't we can't add another teacher, you'll be way in the blue. But this is a situation where you need to I think that the district needs to close open enrollment in those grade levels, right? That makes sense. >> But I yeah, I think I think the numbers are fine. If we look here next at Loretta Zambro, um we're going to see that there's an addition of three um classroom FTE. Um those uh certified FTE come from uh adding a seventh grade and then adding an additional section to do we to to kindergarten. And then what's the third? And then yeah, the two in seventh grade, sorry. Okay, I had quite a few questions for Loretta Zambro. So again, um you know, you mentioned

072at the beginning that the kindergarten numbers, you know, you were recommending the theme. So, you know, we've added a teacher here. How many students have you enrolled for kindergarten at Loretta Zambro at this point? Or have those open enrollment applications? 12 open enrollment applications. And enrolled 14 so far. Okay. So, you haven't accepted any open enrollments or you have? We have not so far. Okay. So, um And do you know how many um current kindergarteners are on open enrollment to give us an idea if, you know, we'll have the rest enroll? We have four currently on open enrollment in kindergarten. Oh, okay. So, 21 neighborhood students. Okay. So, you might be able to get to two. You know, again, in my head, I think kindergarten, maybe we be conservative, right, and make sure we have

073the, you know, closer to the bodies that we need because, obviously, 12 and 1/2, you know, we don't want to end up there. Um but um you know, if we want to talk I'll just offer my opinion about eighth grade. I personally do not think we should add eighth grade. I do not see any student being like, I'm going to leave my school in the last year. Uh I have an incoming eighth grader, and he would murder me if if if if I suggested he move schools um in his last year. So, I don't again, to me, I don't think that's I don't think we're going to see the numbers unless you have personally called all of these families and said, "Hey, are you going to move your student?" And that was the the plan.

074We were going to recruit and then we were also the Bruce had said that maybe we could do a junior high night at Loretta Zambro and kind of attract kiddos over there. Yeah, I just think it's going to be hard to do and again when we're in, you know, a budget deficit is, you know, is it needed? I guess, you know, and is it going to you know, we don't want to end up with To me it's really hard to see numbers of 20 kids in a junior high class when we have kindergartners sitting at 25, right? I don't find that that's hard for me as a parent, as a board member. Um So, I have the same question about Champs. Again, Mhm. I don't think it's equitable. I don't, you know, you everybody can

075be exposed to Champs and still be equitable when you have schools that have 650 kids that have three Champs and you're saying a school of 250 should have two. That that's 400 children different. So, inevitably they are seeing those kids way, way more. And again, I'm not saying remove them, but I think that Loretta Zambro and Liberty could share Champs teachers. You know, they go to one. I think again, we have to be creative because just to make it easier for scheduling is not a reason for me to you know, again with the with the FTE situation. Um My question here for sixth grade, it says they have 36 students and you allotted two teachers. But Liberty in seventh grade has 37 students and you allotted 1.5. So, how did you determine that they have

076one less student and should get a whole 'nother FTE and Liberty only get a half FTE. Yeah, thanks for that that question. Um these are active it's active and live and and dynamic. So like uh it'll inch up a student or go down a student. These like numbers are accurate as of last Tuesday. So I'm not sure what we were considering in that in that scenario. Okay, one thing um for Loretta Zambro is it is our our school that has grown. It's um shown uh a growth in enrollment, a slight growth. And so we're looking at that. Um Bruce, do you want to speak to some of the growth that you might have had? I Most of these numbers are going to be nearly spot-on if not accurate. I know that in K-6 this year,

077beginning of this school year, first day we had 210 students. As of today, we currently have 243. So that's about a 30 33 students over the course of 3 quarters of a year. So projecting that out over the course of a year, we estimated that would be about 40 this year. Um I won't consider preschool because it's not applicable to this but preschool's also grown. Um and just looking at the looking at the housing in the area, the subdivisions that are coming up, knowing that we grew 35 to 50 students this year, we anticipate that that would grow exponentially in future years simply because of the number of houses that are being built within the circumference. So I can that's the best I can do on the enrollment question, yeah. Yeah, and that's okay but

078again, we need to you know, we said that we were going to apply it the same to each school and to me this isn't being applied the same. And so that's the concern that I have. So And I and I understand that and hear that and that's why I kind of put it as my special case. When you look at this um this uh it's in your packet. It's the LES student enrollment and it's a chart of enrollment numbers for this year. Uh Loretta Zambro is the only school that has shown a uh noticeable increase. Yeah, and I guess my question would be is that increase occurring in junior high? Which my guess is it's unlikely because Again, best estimate I can give you. I know that we were right around 34 35 at the

079beginning of the year for our sixth-grade students. I'm ballparking as of today I believe we're at 40 or 41. So, we've grown six out of 34. So, about not quite 20% maybe 15%. So, again, I just I want us to apply the formula the same. And so, if we apply it the same as we have other schools like Liberty's eighth is at 45 and they're only getting 1.5. And Loretta Zambro's seventh is at 41 and they're getting two. It's they should each be at 1.5. And and I I hear that and we'll take the board's direction on that. Our thought was though when you have a new school starting out you have to staff it appropriately so that it can grow into it. But, I understand the the I we'll we'll take it back and

080and consider it more. If I may. Um I appreciate what administration has brought forward here. And I understand what board member Zimmerman is saying. I also understand what you're saying Mr. Lena is that you know, it is a new school. We're working on open new grades. There's going to be challenges that come with that. It's not seventh grade isn't established there. It's not. So, there's going to be new challenges that that school is going to uh have and again with what Mr. Neminsky said, there's a lot of growth around there. I understand trying to use the same formula, but the form same formula for every school just doesn't always work. Um as Dr. Avalos said, some schools have different needs. It's not just the ADM that go to that school. And so we have to

081be cognizant of that as well when we're making these decisions. So, I thank you for the explanation, Dr. uh Mr. Lane. Madam President, members of the board, if I could also just add, one of the discussions and considerations for adding the eighth grade to Loretta Zumbro was that is our area for growth. Um that's coming in to our district. And as you raised the concern members of remember about not uh an eighth grade student at LBA not wanting to actually uh go over to a new school, equally we have families coming in. And so what happen is maybe they have three children, maybe a kindergarten, a fourth grade, and an eighth grade. And so if they move into the Loretta Zumbro uh boundary lines, then what happens is those two students go to LZ and

082the parent has to transfer, you know, uh transport the eighth grade student to another site. So, they are unable to go to the same school as families are moving into the Loretta Zumbro boundaries. So, that was part of our um discussion and forward thinking of adding the eighth grade to provide new families coming in um a home immediately in their boundaries. And while I can understand that, I also don't want to be fiscally irresponsible and have a class of 15 eighth graders where other schools are going to sit at 35. So, that would conclude the Okay, just one more question. So I don't see any sped staffing for us to see. So is that going to come to the board at a different time? At this time the the special services staffing was not included

083in this first and foremost because our students with IEPs the numbers increasing and not decreasing and the needs are so different. If you recall in some of the board agendas you've seen stipends for over number over minutes and that's because we have a high number of students with IEPs. So what we didn't want to do is bring to the board decrease in staff first to ensure that we have enough staff to service provide all of the minutes that were required to and at this time we currently have vacancies. We have current teacher vacancies on staff and so right now we were just going to leave it as is. Once we finalize the staffing at close of the end of the year then we'll start looking at our numbers rolling for next year. But right now

084the proposal is to leave it staffed as is. Okay, so based on on what you've said do you think that there's going to be a need for an increase because again the board would need to account for that. Looking at last year's number October 1st count compared to this October 1st count the numbers look stable. So over a two-year review the numbers basically stayed the same. So I would say no. We would we would stay the same remain. All right, thank you. Um let's move on and we'll see how much we can get through. All right, thank you madam president members of the board. I'm going to save a lot of narrative to begin with I'm going to get right to the numbers. So we are looking now at the budget prioritization looks like this

085the data table. Um so quickly, um, a committee of stakeholder committee came together. Um, they brought forth their top three priorities from their stakeholder groups and, uh, leadership committees. Uh, there was discussion, uh, identification, discussion, and then ranking of those, uh, items. And that's that first data table that you can see there and the the rank that came from that. Uh, with the estimated annual cost to the district, to the M&O budget. The second data table is just talked about there was some items that were removed after the prioritiz- prioritization list was formed and the explanation of why. And at the bottom of that first page, just additional ideas that did not make the list for prioritization. A lot of those we were able to, uh, fund it via, uh, maybe capital or some, uh,

086grant funding, etc. So, that's the front page. The back page, um, so that's your final recommended priority items in three tiers. So, I think that's the one you probably want to, we want to get to and have as much discussion as possible. Um, so the different tiers. The top tier right there in the very top item. Um, and again, I wasn't here last year, but understanding that there was not there were no raises to staff last year. So, we are recommending that 2% raise for all staff is a priority. Um, and you can see the ranking there was zero. So, the ones that have zero ranked were did not come to the guiding coalition, the budget committee, um, but in cabinet discussions, we decided that these should take priority for your consideration. The second thing

087there is that teachers from that 2% raise in staff, we would allocate or we would recommend that the teacher 2% increase be paid from the 301 or classroom site funds and there's the amount there. Um, and then it kind of continues on. I don't need to read all of them to you. Um, and then towards the very end of that top tier, the first one, um, that was the highest ranked number one, uh, begins that process there. So, we are hoping, um, that you'll consider that top tier, um, a strong strong possibilities, and then, uh, get into the tier two, hopefully throughout the year. And then you can see the explanations, a lot of times it's equity or providing support, um, etc. So, I will entertain questions now on the final recommendations. Can you tell

088us who served on the budget committee, please? You know, I do not have the names in front of me, but let me go around the table. I know I can I can go around the table. >> Just positions. Um, they were district and site leadership, um, members from all different types of leadership. We had an office manager, we had principals, we had APs, assistant principals, we had instructional coaches. We had, um, the leadership from each of the district department, uh, department heads. Um, and again, I can go around the room in my memory and give you all the names if you wanted. >> That's okay. >> But all leadership, including classified, certified, administrative, were represented in that. Okay, so we had no teachers on the committee? Uh, no, we did have teachers. Yes. We had

089a reading interventionist. Okay, so one one one teacher. One teacher, one IC, I think there were two principals. We had a total of, uh, 15, um, people, uh, to it was our eight schools, plus our seven different district leaders, then plus me equated to 16. We wanted to have a very balanced. I didn't want to have any any area necessarily top heavy than another. Um equally with that, um I think I had two principals on there because again, they have a more bird's eye overarching view, but I thought it was very important to have classified certified admin and all the different types of leadership involved in that committee work. Okay. And so, it was it was heavy on the leadership part though. Like, you know, not a lot of teacher voice. Did you have any

090parents? So, so that was part of the whole site bringing in those recommendations to us. So, stakeholders, parents, committee members through PTO, site council were involved in the site conversations prior to coming to this committee. So, absolutely their voices were heard. Okay. >> They met in their leadership teams with teachers, with classified staff, with parents, with community members. That was my task to all of the principals, and then also to all the representatives that came to the guiding coalition committee meeting. So, yes, all voices, including stakeholders, were heard. Okay. Um you know, did did the committee provide um input on reduction? So, although I, you know, appreciate that, you know, the things that they're looking for, I think we have established for a while that we are going to have to reduce the budget. And

091so, did they provide any input on the reduction potentials? The committee did not provide any recommendations for uh reductions. Um that was done in cabinet, and that is that lower data table um that is reduction considerations. So, in meeting with leadership, both site and district, uh we provided um that there below for you. Okay. Did you just want to save the discussion for the meeting like about the prioritization or We could do that since we're Sorry, we were trying to figure out if we needed to cut it off at 5:30. Um but we could um we could end here for our special meeting and this is on the agenda later as an actual action item. So we can continue discussion then um and have action at that time if members on the board are in

092agreement. I think that's fine. I just I don't know if all of our principals and you know different people that are here if we need to ask questions just but That is also fair. um Are there any specific questions right now that we have that principals might be needed for that we could ask? Otherwise um the agenda is not heavy and so I think we may get back to this fairly quickly once the meeting starts. Yes, and I also have more than just principals in the audience uh to reflect all different departments. So if you have like specific areas that you have questions on that at least they'll know whether they need to stay or not. Got you. Uh Miss Williams, can I ask um you know I looked you said that you looked back

093at the cuts that we made last year. So I also looked at that today, too. Or over the weekend and like one of the things that we said that we were going to cut was like $277,000 of um consulting. So it Is that something that you're exploring to see if we actually Yes. Okay. >> Yes, I'm going through each one of them uh and today I was evaluating whether it was an FTE or dollar amount. Okay. >> And then to verify I was going through 24 to see what our actual numbers were and then I'll go through 2025 26 to make sure that those reductions were actually made so that this year's FTEs are what was agreed upon. Okay. I'm fine either way if we want to just discuss it in actual Okay, just for

094um so everybody is aware the budget prioritization is the first general business agenda item so I do believe we will get to it pretty quickly. Um so but we can it's 5:31 we'll end the special meeting right now. Um take a 5-minute recess so that we can sort of clean up everything here and if you need to use the restroom or whatever and then we will re um start the regular meeting at 5:37. >> Mhm. >> It is 5:39 p.m. on Monday, March 30th, 2026. I call the Liberty Elementary School Governing Board regular meeting to order. Uh we are in the Jerry Roby District office and we have four board members present, board member Kenyon, board member Zimmerman, vice president Serencioni, and myself, board member Schmidt. Uh we can move to agenda item 3.2, approval

095of the special meeting agenda. A motion to approve the special meeting agenda form consistent with board policy 1-302 and temporarily suspend governing board policy with which this agenda may be inconsistent. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Um Board Member Kenyon? I. Board Member Zimmerman? I. Board Member Suren Soni? I. I'm also an I. We will show that passed 4 to 0. Item 4.1, approval of consent agenda. Anybody have anything that needs to be pulled from the consent agenda? I make a motion we approve the consent agenda. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Board Member Kenyon? I. Board Member Zimmerman? I. Board Member Suren Soni? I. I'm also an I. We'll show the consent agenda passed 4 to

096nothing, zero. Sorry. Tired. Um general business 5.1, discussion consideration to provide interim superintendent direction on budget budget priorities. So, this is our continuation from our um study session, our work session. Open to the board for discussion and comments, please. Madam President, a point of me? Yes, please. Um I would like to ask uh when it What's our deadline for approving this? Just for everybody's sake. Whoever, sorry. It's Williams. Yes, we have to have the proposed budget um due by June the 15th or adopted and submitted. Okay, thank you. The reason why I wanted to make sure that that was highlighted is is I think we should have started this work a long time ago. It's it's very hard for us to dive through all the data that's here in just an hour or two. Um,

097and I know administration is looking for direction tonight. Um, I know the board has a lot of questions and trying to get on the same page of where we want to go as a district with this budget. I think it's good that we have the conversation, that we air out the questions. Um, however, I don't know personally if I'm ready to jump into this. So, I think we just continue on if if if the board wills with the discussion, but I don't know. It's up to the board, I guess, if we are going to go ahead and approve this as is or with the changes, so. That's it. Ms. Schmidt. Please go ahead. Um, while I know that, you know, we don't have to have a proposed budget till June, um, and I agree with

098Mr. Kenyon that we should have started this process a long time ago. However, you know, we have to make some staffing decisions. Principals need to know who to hire. We talked about trying to get the best, and I think if we push all of this off till, you know, May, June, we're going to create other problems, I guess, for ourselves. So, I will just share, um, my thoughts about the budget, what I think, uh, what my opinion would be to do, and then other people can share. I don't know how else to start the discussion, if that's okay, Ms. Schmidt. Yes, go ahead. >> Okay. So, um, based on the current staffing model, when I looked at the model and I looked at the bands and how they would combine the .5s and and all

099of that, I I would reduce Loretta Zambrowse kindergarten to one until you had the numbers and I would not and I would give them the 1.5 and 1.5 instead of twos to be equitable to the schools. I can see how we could reduce the six staff. The diff- The most difficult campus for me well, two most difficult, Liberty's. Holy mackerel. I don't know how I looked at your staffing over and over and over trying to figure out how you were going to make this work and I truly couldn't do it and that is like full transparency and so you know, if some way we could give you at least one more teacher, again, when you look at the numbers, right? You have and we're saying you're going to have the same number of teachers as

100Loretta that's at 264. Again, that's my concern. We're not applying the formula the same, but I think that we could find a way to reduce six FTEs is what I'm saying. So, I think that that is an accurate number. We could lose 360,000. Does that number include benefits? No. So, it actually be higher. Yes. Do you Cuz uh I'm sorry. We uh said our average teacher salary is about 60,000. And so, that is what we used to come up with that number. Okay, and so, can you give me an average for what benefits cost? >> About 20% of that. So, you could add an an additional 20%. So, That's another 72,000. Thank you. Um So, so the way that I look at that, like I you know, do I think there are a little bit

101of tweaks maybe with Liberty, Loretta, and and possibly Las Brisas? Yes. Um but I think that overall we could get to six less FTE. Um and I guess I just need to state like for my opinion, I'm I'm we have to reduce the budget. So, I'm not really looking at any additions except raises. I feel like as a board member, I feel like we need to find a way to give our staff a raise. But in essence, that means we have to find cuts other places. Um and I will say that I want to make sure that we have the funds for the assistant sup of Ed Services because I think that is a very important position. We gutted Ed Services last year. And you know, I think it's unfortunate that it didn't get encumbered,

102but um so in my head we have to cut around 300,000 initially, right? The 157,000 and I'm estimating around 150 for the Ed Services position, but it's honestly probably a little bit more than that with um benefits. So, you know, the the current staffing model would kind of in my brain wipe it clean. Okay? Um now the raises I think if we give everybody a raise, it's around 450,000. I'm not including the step right now just because that's a lot. I feel uncomfortable with fully putting the raises for teachers in the classroom site fund because it it's meant for additional money, but when you put raises in it like year-over-year and we're counting on that money to keep coming and it it's eventually it could phase out. And so I would be okay maybe pulling

103a hundred thousand out of classroom site fund. I'm just sharing my opinion for the board and then everybody else can offer theirs. Um which means that we'd need to find um and maybe up to 150. We need to find three hundred thousand dollars other places in the budget in order to be able to offer a raise to our staff. Um to me the easiest place to do it, not the easiest, that's not the right word. But the the seven um permanent guest teachers, that position was created from ESSER funds. We no longer have ESSER funds. To me it's something that we could eliminate. Is that going to be a full savings? No, because inevitably we're going to have to pay subs when they are needed, right? So could we half that amount and call it

104a you know half of that if we decide to cut those seven positions? I don't know. Maybe you could advise us. So I see that um one of the things I asked was for these kindergarten screeners. So this is for the gifted um that's the screener for kindergarten for gifted, right? Correct. Okay. So we don't service children for gifted until third grade. We don't have self-contained program. We don't have the cluster model until third grade. So to me it doesn't make sense to screen them in kindergarten because we are not going to service them. And I don't think it's truly developmentally appropriate either and I think there's a lot of research to support that it's too early to identify giftedness for a lot of kids. And then So again, is that a lot of money?

105No, but I think we need to try to be creative to find pockets of money in different places without affecting the classroom too much, right? Last year when we did this it was actually just the four of us then, too. Um and um you know, I think we all agree we want to try to not touch the classroom as much as possible. Um I do think that we could eliminate one CHAMPS teacher between Liberty and Loretta to make it equal or not equal, more equitable in terms of the number of kids that are being you know, uh given access the same amount of access to CHAMPS. The AP is a difficult one. Um I completely hear what you're saying that Title 1, you know, schools have different needs. Um and so and essentially though, we

106Liberty is a Title 1 school and we treat them similarly in terms of the AP to Austerlitz. They have less students but they're given the same um allocation. And so I wonder, could we do a part could they share an AP? Instead of having two full-time APs, could they share an AP? Again, I'm just throwing out ideas. I'm not saying this is this is just because again, I'm looking for $300,000 somewhere. Um I really would like the board and this is again, it affects the classroom, so but that mag program, I don't think it's fully being utilized. Um and I think, you know, right now we're paying a full-time teacher for 12 students that she only he or she, I don't even know, only has half day. Right? They're pushing in to another teacher. So,

107I don't I think um And then, and then the other thing that I think we have to consider is because we're not getting project momentum money, are we paying any salaries out of project momentum or is it really just additional PD for staff um and things like that uh stipe you know, teacher lead stipends. Member Zimmerman, um I'll let uh Miss Bruney speak to this, but I believe that we removed all salaries at this point and it's just for professional development. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct. Uh the position role was eliminated this past year. Okay. So, but we are paying stipends out of that money. Correct. Okay. So, you know, again, because we need to reduce the budget, um even if we don't give raises, we still have to reduce the budget

108regardless. So, I think, you know, the board needs to consider removing those stipends that are being paid out of project momentum. And member Zimmerman, Madam President, members of the board, I I um I agree with you and I think looking at the stipends, we could easily find 300,000 if that's kind of what you're looking at from the reduction of stipends. Um So, do keep that in mind as that if that's the number you're looking at. Also, if I could just go back, you talked about the classroom site fund, the teacher raises you're concerned about being paid out of the teacher site fund and um Miss Williams, I'd like for you to jump in here, but um from what I understand is that we could pay for that additional increase for the teachers, and then we

109could always move it to MNO, but you can't go from MNO to a classroom site fund cuz that is now supplanting, but we could start at the classroom site fund and I'll let you speak to how much is in there, Miss Williams, but that would be my recommendation is that we use that classroom site fund. We can always move it to MNO, but we cannot go from MNO back to a different fund. That's supplanting. Miss Williams. Yes, that's true. Um for pay raises can come out of classroom site fund and a lot and most districts are taking pay raises out of that fund because it is set aside for teacher increases. Yeah, I just am looking at the sustainability of it like long-term because again, I don't want to do a What's the right word

110I'm looking for? A quick solution, right? Cuz you're saying, "Well, we can move it into MNO." But remember, we still have that 600,000 that we're already kind of taking from DAA, and I know we're allowed to, but to me that doesn't mean that we don't need it for capital needs. So, I don't How are we going to You know, we have cut a lot last year, and so to think that we're going to find a way to you know, if we do raises, 200,000 plus 600, that's almost a million dollars that we're going to try to move back into MNO. Again, that's going to be difficult unless we see enrollment increase, which we just haven't seen a ton. Yes, at the last 2 months it has, but again, it's the will of the board. If

111that if that's what everybody else wants to do, then you know, certainly they have the ability to do that. My concern with saying, "Well, we can find it in the stipends." It's hard to approve that, right, without knowing exactly where we're going to find it. But you know, in the future, I do think the board, at least for the teacher stipend, should consider some reductions um in more of a grandfather way as we hire new staff. So, those are my ideas. And just lastly, coming back to that classroom site fund, again, if you are wanting the 2% raise for all staff, um again, that classroom site fund is there. So, if you're going to allocate that 2% raise, why not use that classroom site fund for the purpose? And I know you said like sustainability,

112well, next year we then dip into the M&O to support that if we can't sustain it in the classroom site fund. But to pull it right now from the classroom site fund, I'm sorry, from M&O. Sorry, let me back up. To pull right now out of M&O then prevents you anytime later on to reverse course and do it out of classroom site fund. And I I understand that. My concern is again, like I don't want to just do a quick fix just so we can figure it out because if it's not sustainable next year, then we're going to be in the same boat that this is our second year in this boat. And I don't I'm trying not to create a third year in the same boat. Um if I can interject, we did get

113an email today saying the classroom site fund has been approved for next year. Um and it is an increase. I can't remember the exact dollar amount, but there is an increase to classroom site fund for next year. And Ms. Williams, do you know what our current um fund is in that the amount in the classroom site fund currently? Um I don't have the uh amount. It should on the board's um documents. I believe right now we're carrying forward about $3 million. >> That's what I thought. It was about $3 million. Madam President. Yes, please go ahead. Um I would agree with we definitely need a look at, in my opinion, the the teacher pay increase and also the classified step increase. Um I've had a number of classified staff approach me asking if they're going

114to get the increase since they didn't last year and that was something that was almost a make or break uh for a number of these families that are that are living with this. We all know the cost of everything has just went up. Um and sadly, these increases don't even keep up with inflation. And so um I think we need to take care of our staff. We haven't given them a a pay increase last year. I think it's we do got to do our due diligence to make sure that they're funded um at least with this as much as we can. And so if we have to find that from somewhere else, whether it be stipends, which there's a lot there in the stipends, um or other areas, we definitely need to I think that

115these two that you have at the top of the priority list is accurate. I just want to clarify just so that I make sure I'm on the same page with Mr. Kenyon. So, recommended 2% raise for all staff, that is like classified staff and administration. That 204,000. Is that correct? Correct. So, the 2% at the very top, that's kind of white it out, that's for administration and classified. So, they would get 2% from MNO and then the 2% raise for teachers to conclude all employee groups we get the 2% but the 2% raise for teachers would come out of that $3 million that we have sitting there for the out of the classroom site fund. Okay and then the classified step increase if we did that would be in addition to the 2%? That would

116be in addition. Okay. I had a question about this. Um the reduction considerations are they taking into account your recommended priority items? Did you put those back in? Because you're saying like current staffing model is to lose six FTEs but up here we're trying to add more. So are those Did you account for those? Cuz doing the quick math you're not. >> So I'm not sure I'm understanding your question completely but so at the bottom there where it says reduction consideration and can we get this pulled up on the screen? It's the budget prioritization data table so everybody can see that. Um so at the bottom table to show the current staffing model the top number I believe you're referring to Vice President Srencioni we talked about the staffing model reducing six FTEs so that

117is our reduction consideration we're reducing six certified teachers so that's not that's not part of the prioritization. So if So then if you go back up let's see this Um I don't know what's where it says reinstate 1.5 FTE at Westar? So we talked about that that could be a potential area of concern so that would now since we're reducing the six FTEs we'd be adding back in 1.5 so I'm bringing that back as a prioritization in that tier one area. So, we're eliminating six. Now, we're looking at the budget items. We could include looking at all sites. We talked about LBA just a minute ago at DLI. So, we could look at reinstating all six. But Yeah, I just want to add because we're talking about you're trying to add those up. It doesn't

118count in the bring the certain positions back, too. Right. Well, I'm I'm not looking at To be honest with you, I'm not looking at any of it. I'm just looking at raises because we already have to cut 157,000 initially, right? From from the ADM, essentially. I mean, there are other things, but I'm just using that, okay? And then if we want the Ed Services job, the assistant soup, that's 150. So, that's I'm just doing quick math. 100 Yeah, 300,000. So, I'm not looking at adding. No, I understand. What I'm saying is you were looking at the bottom saying you're counting this off saying, "No, if you got rid of the guest teachers, we save 187,000." But I'm I guess I understand what you're saying. But I'm just making I don't If we go and like

119make votes, like we go and that's going to be less free money up. Could we scroll down so the public could see the reductions there? Thank you. If we look at those um three areas of reduction that board member Zimmerman mentioned as one that she was considering. Um they're the same ones that I had circled, but the FTE reduction, which we have listed at 360, but we said that's not benefits. Benefits would take that to 432. Um permanent guest teachers, 187. And then the kindergarten screeners, which is basically $6,000. If you add up those three, we're at 625 uh or so in reductions at that point just to keep the math for everyone right now. Uh are the permanent guest teachers, are they getting benefits? Oh, that's a good question. Okay, so that'd be an

120additional 20% on top of that 187. Okay. Can you give us an updated number? Yeah, give me a second. So, that'd be an additional 3750. So, that brings us to 225. Plus 663 is our total for those three items, the FTEs with benefits and the kindergarten screeners. I guess what I what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure if I'm ready to say okay on all six of those losses because we may had so many different discussions about it going into the classrooms, the classrooms being too big now. Um are we do we really need an eighth grade? And there's number one. So, they might not be directly correlated, but if we talk about using those, if we approve it, then we're saying get rid of all those people. And I I don't know

121if we're ready to do that because it's on the prior like it's on their list to bring some of those things back. So, I don't know if we're trying to pick apart this, if like what's the plan here? Go ahead. Um and can you explain the level D school sped rebid with Sierra schools and if that seems like an accurate amount, a million dollars we could possibly be saving? So this came up for um, reduction. So Sierra schools, we have a contract the program itself is split between two schools. So you have half of the program located at Rainbow Valley and the other half at Liberty. The contract is actually more than 1 million. It's at least 1.5 and then that does not include um, the summer program which is at least a few hundred

122thousand more. Um, so it's very big contract. So one recommendation would be that we look at it, that we rebid it and that we bring it to the board for discussion. And instead of an automatic renewal, we bid it out to see if there's a less expensive program. Yeah, and I think that that would be prudent on our end, of course. Um, for almost every every contract we have, we always need to re-evaluate them and see, you know, the landscape's always changing. And so, um, I think whether I mean, it's up to the board, but I I would be very much in favor of of doing that, going out for a new bid on that. I think though that the idea that we could save a million is probably a you know, high number because

123inevitably we have to service the students um, and just for um, you know, what's happened in the past, the reason we went to Sierra schools is because we had a very difficult time staffing those classrooms and all of those things. Um, so that's I think this is our second year, but could be our third. Madam President, members of the governing board, my understanding is Sierra Schools of has been here for 7 years and just to be clear the contract is for a number of seats whether or not those seats are filled. So, for example, the seats are not filled. So, we're paying for seats that are currently empty. So, right now we're not currently actually using the service. Is that okay? How many students cuz I know it's for 12, I believe. So, how many

124students do we have in there? So, there's two separate. So, you have a level C and a level D. One contract is for 36 students and then the other contract is for 12. Okay, so how many do we have in the 36? Um currently attendance is sometimes less than 30. 30 students per day. Okay, but how many do we have, you know, assigned to that? Cuz you say attendance like 30 >> of students who are in there right now is less than 30. in the program. >> In the program. >> Yes. Okay, and then for the the 12 one. That's total. So, for 48 we have less than 30 students in there attending. This is just between the two schools. Correct. And I know it's hard to find somebody to fill these positions, but a

125million and a half to two million dollars is a lot. Also, to clarify, they also have students from other districts that attend. So, there's not just Liberty students there. Right, but there's a there is a you know, they have to pay to do that. To send their students that the dis the districts that are sending their students. Correct. But, Liberty isn't charging rent. So, they have the space at no charge. Well, that one I'd be in favor of us looking to see if we can staff it again and get rid of this contract. Thank you. I think to answer your question, Mr. Sorrentino, I do think like the idea is kind of for us to pick through it, I guess, to what we, you know, we can agree to do. I don't think obviously we

126can't do a large number of of the additions, really. Um and you know, I would only be in favor of doing reductions that we have a clear number, I guess, of of how much it is so that we go in with the right understanding of how much we can then add. I guess what I'm trying to say like I was I was just confused why we have the why the district's recommending recommending six cuts and then at the same time asking for full-time teachers back in the same slide. It's kind of confusing. And that was just from the staffing model based on the governing board recommendations per class. So, kinder recommended at certain number students, first grade to third grade, you know, middle school. So, it was based on the governing board's recommendation for class

127sizes that that's where the six FTE came in to play for the reductions. If we were to staff it according to the governing board's recommendation for class sizes. Mr. Mr. Sorrentino, I think the bottom, the reductions, is sort of what we need to do to get the budget. The top is like your wish list at Christmas for what you hope your parents are going to give you. Um not everything is going to happen, but like ranked in order, this is what if, you know, if we could do everything this is what we would do and now we just have to you know, reduce from the bottom in order to add some things from the top. So it is a little bit of both. Um just figuring out where to reduce in order to add. I

128understand what you're saying. Just personally if I made it, I wouldn't say cut and give me back the same thing at the same time. I know. Like I would like us to consider at least eliminating one champs between Liberty and Loretta and not necessarily adding it to the FTEs but then allowing the flexibility for where we need it in classrooms. Um because again, I think if we are looking at the staffing model and what we give our other schools, you can make that work. And then it would get free us up another FTE for like DLI and you know, things that we may not be able to make work. And if we give Loretta the 1.5 in 6 and 1.5 in 7th to be what the other schools are getting with those similar numbers, then

129that would give us another FTE. I have a question about the June benefits for non-renewed staff line. So currently they get benefits through June and that would end July 1 or June 30, but is the idea to end it early? Is that not already contracted to them? Do they not expect that they would get them through June at this current point? So, the history of the district is to pay the teachers um even if they quit or resign through June. And to me, that's a gift of public funds because they are not our employees. And so, their benefits should stop the day of their their last day of physical work because they have resigned and said, I am not coming back next year. And so, their benefits should stop. And so, this by doing this,

130it would free up about $60,000. Okay, thank you for I Yeah. I I'm sorry. I'm just surprised that we would pay benefits to somebody who is not employed any longer. But is that in their contract, though? No. Benefits are not part of a contract. Okay. Sorry. No, no. All right. So, I I think there's a number of things that the board just needs to hear, I guess, clarifications from this reduction considerations list. Um can administration just go through it line by line real quick because you know, we're kind of picking and choosing, but um some of these we've already talked about, but if you could just real quick run through it and explain what each one is that we can get a grasp. Thank you, member Kenyon. Uh Madam President, members of the board, I'm

131going to tag team this with Ms. Williams cuz she's got some numbers and I'll kind of go through things. So, the top one I think we've talked about, the reduction of six FTEs. Next one is rejection of 0.5 FTE classified at Blue Horizons. Currently, the staff there, the front office is at 2.5. So, we'd just be bringing that into an equitability across all school sites, one office manager and one secretary. So, that's the reduction there. We just had a conversation I'm sorry, and if you have any questions, stop me as we go through. Okay? The June benefits for non-renewed staff, just had a discussion on that. Okay? Permanent guest teacher, so we discussed that one as a possibility. The consultant for HR, this was support needed during a staff who's been absent in the HR

132department. So, we've been heavily relied upon a consultant there and throughout this year. So, if we fully staff the assistant superintendent of HR and student services, I don't feel that that would be There might be a a small nominal fee if they're working on contracts or something like that outside if we consult that out, but otherwise I don't believe that that would be something that would be such a high expense. Just a quick question. So, are we no longer using consulting services for HR at this time? Members of the board, Madam President, members of the board, no, we we are and I appreciate that Dr. Avila stepped in as acting assistant superintendent of HR and student services. However, there is a lot to do at this time of year, so we are still consulting at

133this point in time to get us through the end of the year, but but we're talking about next school year. >> Okay. We just talked about the level D school sped rebid. The next one is instructional coach. New, so Mr. Mann had some conversations with Oh my goodness, I can't remember Mr. Mann who you talked spoke with, but we are able to pay for any new instructional coaches out of that classroom site fund if you wanted to. So, that would look like right now we only have a point four instructional coach at Loretta Zambro. So, if we were going to add to make it a full-time instructional coach at Loretta Zambro, we could add a point six and pay that out of classroom site funds. So, that's what that example is also Stray Mountain. We

134have a shared um point eight IC point two AP. So, if we're going to add an additional instructional coach, the point two that would be new could possibly be be paid out of the classroom site fund. So, that's what that is referencing. Can I just ask a question? Do we pay any full salaries out of classroom site fund? Like somebody's full FTE out of classroom site fund right now? Yes, I believe so. I've seen that, but I can't tell you exactly who they are. I could bring that back to you. >> Yeah, I would be very curious to know that information. Okay, moving on. Uh we talked about Kinder screeners for the gifted. The next one there, preschool and transportation. This is an area um that seems to be very bloated um as we have

135started to investigate a little bit. I would like to do a deeper dive into preschool and the transportation. Um you see some numbers there. Again, I I I got all these numbers from Ms. Williams and I appreciate her uh giving me these numbers, but um I think we can really reduce there in preschool. I have a question. Um Ms. Williams, so did you calculate that 650 for transportation for preschool? I We worked together on that number. Um I don't remember the exact formula that we used. We did that last Thursday. Okay, just cuz our our budget for transportation I looked on the last months is like 2.4, so we're kind of saying that our preschool transportation Now, mind you, these are for IEP only students that we're transporting for preschool. And transportation and that's a

136little parentheses there, the transportation for preschool is about 2,000 a day. Um and then the transportation, I said transit 650 uh thousand 650k, that was I think what we uh determined based on salaries of parents and drivers. That's where that 650 came from. Just the drivers and para cost. Okay. Um but we are only transporting students with IEPs, correct? I do not um Did you Hence our thought we needed a deeper dive into this all all things preschool. >> asking a question about At this time, most students with IEPs are automatically granted transportation. Right. Because that is part of FAPE. Okay. Sort of. And again, there you see under the preschool transportation um the current staff that's in our preschool is the cost is $914,000. The transportation at 650 is the drivers plus the pair

137the um aids that ride along. Um so adding those together then subtracting the ADM that um we get would be 163,000 and I believe on the follow-up page that was based on 32 students. So, therefore looking at it costs us about 1.4 million dollars. I'm sorry, we could yes, 1.4 million dollars for preschool. And that was just a quick look. So, I I think we need to do a deeper dive into preschool. Okay. But we're not we cannot eliminate preschool because we have to at least service the students that have IEPs. So, I just want to be clear that this is what it costs, but that's not necessarily going to be a savings because we still have to service children that are 3 years old that have an IEP. And we're currently uh 32 students

138is what we're receiving um money for. Additionally, we charge a fee for um non uh students that with special um educational needs. Um and that goes into a separate fund that we don't that's like takes care of like daily expenses. Um sometimes we might see a little bit go back into Amino, but talking with Ms. Williams, probably not. So, those fees are kind of just kind of washed. So, this is the amount that we're spending right now on preschool. Moving on to Ed Services, uh curriculum and assessment costs, I've been working with um the Ed Services team. I appreciate their um that just been a quick review. We will continue to look at um all the costs, um but we feel like we'd be able to do some reductions there and I can give you

139more details if you'd like on that. And then of course, the last one, stipends, um and that that's the number that I got from the original stipend list that we're paying um over 4 mil- $4 million in stipends. Madam President. Yes, please go ahead. Um now, I appreciate you going through this list. The stipends, obviously there's that's that's a huge one. I think that we need to actually have a special session to to talk about that and see what um maybe administration can recommend some things uh to the board before that. The Dr. Avila, the kindergarten screeners, is there a benefit to that that you can think of of us keeping that? Um or else I do agree with board member Zimmerman that I don't know that that's necessary at this time. Um, member Kenyon,

140if if I could speak to that quickly and I've got Ms. Benson in the audience. We don't have a microphone podium. Um, I'm not sure how you're going to speak to this, but she is our coordinator of assessment. Would you come up here, Ms. Benson, because she actually is involved in that, so she can speak uh, exactly to that. We've had some conversations and she too feels like uh, that we could um, eliminate this. Thank you, Ms. Benson. All right. So, yes, kindergarten screeners. So, right now this is for universal all kinders are getting that CogAT test, but we can still offer the CogAT test during our normal rounds. We do three throughout the year. So, any um, parent or teacher that wants to recommend a kinder to be tested can just join those rounds

141instead of doing this big universal um, yeah, big test window. Could I ask another question? Go for it. So, do we So, then do we screen again in second grade, everybody? So, right now board policy is that we screen all kinders and all second graders. Okay, so we're screening again. Yep. Are they taking the Is everyone taking the full test in second or a screener? Great question. Uh, or yes, let's clarify. In second grade, they're taking the full test right out of the gate. They're all doing it. In kinder, there's a pre-screener and those who qualify then take the rest of the test. >> Okay. Yep. Um, and I would be curious to know um, how much it costs to do the full test for second grade instead of screening them first to see if

142cuz it's probably not necessary for every single second grader to take the gifted test when typically we identify 5% of students. Um so, but I know that I didn't ask for that number, so I'm not expecting you to come up with it right now. Yeah, personally I'm okay with a screening that the second graders. There's there's a lot of really really intelligent kids out there that need that challenge. Um and a lot of times they don't get identified unless there's a screening. So, I'm okay with the second second graders. I the kindergarteners that's the question, right? And as long as parents know that they can recommend their kid to be screened for that. I think that that's still is valid and we're still there, but just automatically screening them all in a couple years these

143kids change so much, so you don't you don't really know. So, um yeah, that that's that's all I have from that one. And if it isn't policy, we'll need to make sure that we adjust policy for kindergarten screeners. Yeah, we'll have to check on the policy on that. Thank you, Ms. Benson. You got it. Any Excuse me, any other questions or discussion? Anybody have a motion they'd like to make possibly? Madam President. Yes, please. I don't know that I'm ready for a motion just yet, but I would appreciate it if administration can can look at our discussion and kind of see what's going on between the board um and bring back a kind of a answer to some of these questions and and hopefully some recommendations hopefully fairly soon because we need to get this

144going. Go ahead, Mr. Board members, we can look at that and for example even bring and proposed staffing model for Champs because there are staffing models that other districts use. For example, 5 to 700 students. I mean, they do the same thing. They use number of sections, number of students per section, and then staff FTE that way. So, using that model, basically the same approach, we can bring back recommendations to you as well as looking at the APs. That was another question, so we can definitely look at models, bring those to you for recommendations. Just to propose. I would be in favor of making some sort of motion to offer raises because I know that staff some staff is waiting to sign their contracts for us to offer raise. So, I would love to see

145us get to some sort of agreement at the basic level tonight about um either some basic reductions and then bring back some other ones, but I'm afraid if we push off offering raises that we are going to lose staff. And I would be comfortable offering um the 2% uh for certified and then um 2% basically 2% across the board and then when we get more information about other reductions, then we can look at the step, but at least giving every single person in our district 2%, which would be $440,000. Madam President. Yes, please. Um the board can stop me if they want to, but just to move this along, I think the administration knows kind of what the direction is the board has for them bringing information back and recommendations back um with what board

146member board member Zimmerman said, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the recommended 2% raise for all staff and approve the teacher increase paid from the 301 fund and the rest to be followed up on. I'll second, but can we have a little discussion before we vote, please? All right, we have a motion and a second, but discussion is open. Okay. Um I'm okay with it, but I just want to make sure that administration brings back you know, kind of the specific reductions um because we we have to balance the budget, right? By by if we approve this motion, we've now added $440,000 to the budget. Um I just want to make sure that we're cognizant that we then reduce it, you know, and I think that I think that we can and

147why I'm comfortable going forward tonight with um what we have, but I just want us to be very specific. So, I'd really like to see that come at the April meeting. Madam President, for me? Go ahead. Um Ms. Williams, you were here the last time we did this. Um if you recall, we actually had the spreadsheet up and we were able to move things around and it self-calculated everything. So, made it really easy when the board decided, "Hey, let's throw that in. Let's take that out." and it automatically calculated everything. If we could have that the next time we come together that that would be very nice. Madam President for me. Go ahead. Uh I just want to be clear like I'm not comfortable reducing the six teachers when we're thinking there's a ton of

148money out in the stipends that we can get to. Like I would like a better grasp on the stipends before we start cutting teacher positions. The Uh-oh, sorry. Oh, no. Go ahead. Okay. The reason like I went through and I The reason that I'm okay with them is because when you look I took the 0.5s and I added them together and I made it work where these teachers aren't dividing kids. Um and it does fit within the board-approved class size numbers because you have to remember that we're going to have less kindergarteners than we have eighth graders. So, we should be reducing some FTEs. The place that I'm concerned about is Las Brisas and Liberty just cuz I can't make it work in my head and I have done a master schedule for a K-8

149school before. And so, I know how hard it is. Um so, that's why I would be okay with that number because I also think we're adding too many to Loretta. Well, we can also leave those right in FTEs and not fill them, but just have the money budgeted for them. Doesn't mean we have to fill them, but it's harder to go back and add them to the budget later. Yes, but that's a that's a big chunk of money and if we don't cut some FTEs, I don't know how we're going to come up with over $650,000. I agree. And that's why we need to get a better grasp on these $4 million stipends. Okay. So we have a motion and a second and we've had some discussion with some direction for what we would like

150to see come back at our April meeting. Um and then I you know, we we had plenty of discussion around the the biggest things in the reduction considerations that we thought were probably um you know, where we would like to see some things happening and they were some of the biggest ticket items and so I think they can come in um So there's there's some things to be done between now and when we meet again in April. But we do have a motion and we do have a second so we can take a vote on that. Um Do we remember what we're voting on or do we need it read back? Okay. Okay. Just checking. Um all right, so we'll take the vote. Member Kenyon? Aye. Member Zimmerman? Aye. Vice President Ciaramella Sweeney? Aye. I'm

151also an aye. We'll show that that passed 4-0. All right. Moving on to item 5.2, discussion approval of employment contract for Superintendent Dr. Bridget Dooley. I will open up for discussion or questions at this time. Um I just want to say I'm very excited to see this on the agenda and to welcome our new superintendent. The only thing that I had were some grammar. There's four places that have his instead of her. Um we are aware. >> Okay. Um so I have the page numbers. Uh we we know all of them. Um Sorry. Um I will admit that I reviewed this contract multiple times and so did multiple lawyers and Ms. Camarota is the one who noticed the pronoun errors after we approved it and attached it to the agenda. So, um and and and

152Loretta Zambro apparently also caught them, but the rest of us all missed them in the multiple times reading through it. Um we can have it fixed and we are aware. So, um Ms. Ms. O'Brien is already aware and is supposed to be working on fixing it. We just didn't get an updated one to get today cuz we caught them over the weekend. But, yes, thank you for that. Madam President, if I may? Yes, please. Um I'm also very thrilled about Dr. Dozier wanting to come and be our superintendent. Um I had a number of people actually reach out to me and they were like, "Wow, you were able to uh pull her away." And they they were very happy for us as a district, even people within her own district. Um and so they were

153hoping to hold on to her, but I'm glad we were able to steal her away, I think depending on the board voting tonight. Um I do have a question though, more of a a comment. So, in the contract, because it is public, um I'm just going to spell it out. Number 11, when it talks about the additional stipend, in previous superintendent contracts, this was directly tied they did receive this amount and this was tied to um civic engagement. This was tied to, you know, when you go and take, you know, the mayor out for lunch or something or you're you're doing some community event and the superintendent pays for it. Um this was what this was intended for in previous contracts. I just want to make sure that that or I hope that's the intent

154of this and not just an additional stipend with no attachments. So, uh um I I would recommend that legal probably needs to look at this if the board's willing, um and just to be able to tie this into what it was in previous contracts instead of just an additional $7,500. I'm So, um the stipend is I think I Can I say? Um Yeah. So, if legal needs to review this and to make sure that we're we're good, that should be fine. I just know that in previous superintendent contracts >> Yeah, we will Sorry, we will did review, um and I I don't know that I can say publicly, um but it was reviewed by legal multiple times, uh and it was what was agreed upon. Um any more I think would need to be done

155in executive session. I'm not saying that that's, you know, I'm I'm thrilled that Dr. Dozier would like to come and work for our district. Um It's not a make or break for me make or break for me, but it is one of those things I I hope that that is the intent of what that is there for. And I just want to clarify that legal has reviewed this contract. Yes. Okay. Yes, multiple times. All right. I'm ready to make a motion. I motion to approve appointment contract of Superintendent Dr. Bridget Dozier. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Member Kenyon. I. Member Zimmerman. I. Member Cerasoli. I. I'm also an aye. We'll show that passed 4-0 and welcome Dr. Dooley. You want to get up for

156those a photo? Okay. Would you mind joining us for a photo with the board? Aw. All right. Agenda item 5.3 approval of the salary wage schedules for FY 26-27. Madam President, members of the board, if I may just what's attached there is just our current salary schedule for this year and we're just we were just waiting for direction from you for the increase. If you so choose. And I believe we just we voted for the 2% so we can put that on here. Okay, but these these are for new hires. So, would we be giving them the 2% because then people that have worked in the district 1 year would be making the same amount of money as a new hire, which usually doesn't feel very good to staff. So, I'm not sure that the

1572% would be added. Yeah, the 2% is an increase for current staff, so it wouldn't be added here. So, okay, so we would cuz these salary schedules are last year's, so we would just approve them. Um but potentially minus the stipends since we haven't discussed them. So, Madam President, members of the board, thank you for that clarification, um member Zimmerman. And yes, I do agree with you. Um what we could do is just post this as um as it is and we could remove the stipend areas um and as it approved tonight if you decide to go in that direction and we can just remove the stipends from this. And what I mean by stipends is where it spells it out. There's an area at the bottom. Let me just be specific in the middle

158where it talks about certificated endorsement stipends, standard ESL, standard gifted, reading, math specialist. So, those would just be removed, the special assignment stipends and the other stipends um the other stipends do include the doctorate degree national board certification. So, if you want me to remove all three um with approval of tonight or what your recommendation would be. Um and just to be clear that there are stipends on every single one of these wage schedules, not not just the certified. Um but I'll go ahead and take a stab at the motion. Um, motion to approve the salary wage schedules for 26-27 as presented with the removal of all stipends from all wage schedules. Okay, motion to approve the salary wage schedules for FY 26-27 as presented with the removal of all stipends from all schedules. Okay,

159President Smith and governing board members, the motion will read to approve the salary wage schedules for FY 26-27 as presented with the removal of all stipends from all schedules. That's correct. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Uh, oh, sorry, go ahead. You had a discussion point. Uh, I just want staff to understand cuz I know that this is going to make staff nervous because, you know, some people are have a lot tied into stipends and we are not saying that we're not going to issue them. We just need more time to evaluate them and we'll hopefully come back at the April meeting. So, I just want to be clear that we're not removing them forever. But, that I think the intention is to certainly bring some of

160them back. Speaking for myself. >> No, I think that um, I think that it's good to, you know, state publicly that we're removing them from the wage salary schedule for right now so that they can be reevaluated, and they, you know, maybe might change slightly or whatever we need to do to to make it fit into the budget, but it is not the intention to wipe them out and to not compensate teachers for for the things that they're doing. Just so that is clear to everybody. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Um member Kenyon. I. Member Zimmerman. >> I. Member Serences Sweeney. I. I'm also an I. We'll show that passed four to zero. Okay. Item 5.4 discussion consideration of Westside Impact School District intergovernmental agreement. Um

161this came before the board previously. It is coming back again. Um So, Miss May, would you like to Madam President, members of the board. Um yes, so in front of you again is the Westside Impact um as we reached out to them, we have a little bit more information. So, not much, but a little bit. Again, we paid the invoice for this agreement um back in July for $6,400 $6,411.33. Um we just simply did not sign the contract. Legal has reviewed. Um they are they said that we're okay to move forward. Um based on the last conversation we had, the concern was what are we receiving from this? And then also um signing a 5-year agreement on it. So, we did use Westside Impact um this agreement for the spelling bee and also for the

162math challenge and we're looking forward to moving on into to the district math challenge um through through Westside Impact. Also, we do have the teacher of the year and principal of the year at $250 each that also comes from this. So, I know we were trying to balance out the costs and is it worth it? In my opinion, here we are at the end of March now and all the it's already been paid. They just needed a signed agreement. And make the motion for just this year to re-evaluate for future years, something like that, but um anyways, it is there for your discussion and consideration. Thank you. Uh Ms. Schmidt. Yes, please. >> Okay. Um I am I am fine with moving forward with this. I think, you know, to give our students the opportunity

163to kind of move on um for a spelling bee and math challenge and give them other opportunities. I think science fair, if they wanted to, might even be included here. Um and certainly to be able to recognize our teachers and our principals um is always a nice thing to be able to do. I think, you know, when we look at the grand scheme of things, 6,000 when we're already essentially getting 2,200 back of that and then, you know, there are things that they incur costs for the math challenge, for spelling bee, all those things. So, I'm okay with the with moving forward with this. Madam President. Yes, please. Initially, I was concerned about this um just because from a from a fiscal standpoint, we as everybody just heard, we're we're d- we really haven't even

164started diving very deep in the budget. We need to get much deeper. Um as as you've already said, Ms. May, that that, you know, we're kind of at this point in the year, we probably just need to agree to it this year. I am not okay with signing up for a 5-year, though, um personally. I think that if we do this, it needs to be a year-to-year and evaluated, um because there's if you read the contract, they can change the fee and and uh there's a number of different things that I don't necessarily agree with, but um there's some benefit to it, of course. It is almost $6,500 or $6,400, so um you know, when we're going to be looking at the budget, we do need to evaluate if this is a necessity or if

165it's just something that's a little above and beyond. Um I do think it's above and beyond. I think some of these things we can do within our district a lot cheaper. Um however, as stated, we're kind of at this point in the year, might as well finish out the year and uh and evaluate it for the next year. President Schmidt. Yes, please. And fellow board members, the the agreement that I have in front of me is for the 5-year. Um I did put in the description here if the governing board determines not to sign the IGA, Littleton ESD, the Westside Impact fiscal year or fiscal agent, will return the membership dues paid for FY26. Um if we do not sign the IGA, I can go back and maybe try to get a 1-year, but for

166me to submit or be able to submit Teacher of the Year and our Outstanding Principal of the Year, I've already passed We have already passed the the deadline. It was on the 20th. Uh Ms. Camarada, so this but this dollar amount is per year, correct? It's not It's not $6,400 for 5 years. Um according to the attached uh the purchase purchase order that Ms. Mosher entered. It is It is per year. Correct. But even though we paid it, they can still up it according to the contract. It's a I I'm not too familiar with this, but it is a per It's a ADM fee. Which I think is an average of a dollar and 50 cents per student ADM. Right, but they can change that dollar 50 and move it up. >> So, that that's

167that's kind of what I'm getting at is we don't know what this is going to cost us in year three or in year four or in year five. So, that's that's kind of my concern. I I I would be all for us going back and seeing if they can do a one year. If they don't want to do a one year, I'm honestly not interested in a five signing a five-year contract with them. So, that's me personally. The board can decide. I You know, this is this IGA is made up of public school districts. And so, I don't personally think that the public school districts are out to try to like make money on us. I think they're just literally trying to cover their costs for the events they provide and then the I don't

168know if we call it a stipend, but you know, the winners get. Um so, you know, I'm not concerned that they're going to like start really upping it. Um that's just my personal opinion. I think everybody in in public education is where of this state that this is in, the state of our education system. So, um but Person and Smith. Yes, please. >> Board members, Ms. Williams, do you know if the PO was the same amount last year? No, I do not know because if it's based on ADM, I would assume it has gone up or down depending on our ATM. Yeah. Madam President, members of the board, with that information, maybe I'd recommend the board consider something like directing us to reach out for a one-year agreement. If they're willing to do that, otherwise

169perhaps not knowing now thank you Ms. Camarada that the money would be refunded to us and we've already missed out on the Teacher of the Year. So Did they say we could submit those name names late if we approve it tonight? President Sherman members of the board, Vivian did say I could submit it once the IGA was signed. Oh, okay. Early May is the event over at Grand Canyon University. So we would need to I mean yeah. We either need to decide or not decide tonight. critical And we already do have district spelling bee winners and math challenge winners that are moving forward in the events. And I also was glad that you mentioned that we don't currently have any schools that participate in the science fair but there is a science fair piece of

170it as well that we could participate in in the future if if we continue with Westside Impact. And they do have grants available. Correct. I think we talked about this. We just don't necessarily take advantage of them at this time. Yeah, it says there's teacher grants. I make a motion to approve the Westside Impact School District's intergovernmental agreement. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Member Canyon? Nay. Member Zimmerman? Aye. Member Sarantoni? Aye. I'm also an aye. We'll show that passed 3 to 1. Moving on to agenda item 5.5, uh call for executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431.03A3 and 4 to receive legal advice concerning Maricopa County Superior Court case number CV2025-060383 and to instruct its

171attorney concerning the board's position in settlement discussions pertaining to that action. Make a motion. Yes, please. Motion to call for executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431.03A3 and 4 and 4 to receive legal advice concerning Maricopa County Superior Court case number CV2025-060383 and to instruct its attorney concerning the board's position in settlement discussion pertaining to that action. And to instruct its attorney concerning the board's position in settlement discussion pertaining to that action. A second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Are you ready for the vote, Ms. Camarota? All right. Member Canyon? Aye. Member Zimmerman? Abstain. I'd like to explain my vote. Vice Chair Antonucci? Aye. I'm also an aye. We'll show that's three ayes and one abstention. Ms. Zimmerman, you can explain. Um I will not be participating in the executive session as

172there's a conflict of interest. All right, and we will move into executive session at 6:55 p.m. >> Mhm. >> 6:00 we can reconvene the public meeting at 7:09 p.m. And item 5.7 instructions to attorney concerning settlement discussions in Maricopa County Superior Court case number CV2025-060383. Madam President, motion to approve settlement agreement agreement Maricopa County Superior Court number CV2025-060383 and declare the agenda item and investigation report as described in the agreement null and void. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. We can take a vote. Um member Canyon? Aye. Member Zimmerman? Abstain. Member Caren Seioni? Aye. I'm also an aye. We will show that that passed three ayes, one abstention. Item 6.1 board comments on agenda topics and items for future

173consideration. Um any requests for agenda topics Madam >> specifically outside of all of the things that we said earlier. Outside of today's? Um, if you I If you have ones from earlier that you know for sure, I it would be great to list them out again, I think, just for clarification for everybody. So, I think I'm good. I'm good. As long as I had the big thing was just to kind of some of the stuff we went over today. >> Yeah, so I have um special session for stipends that we're asking for that. We also want them reviewed before we meet again. Um, so I have that written down. Um then there was all of the budget things that we we asked for, but are there other uh do we did you want a MEG

174review? I think I wrote that down, too, but I wasn't sure. >> Yeah, I think so. As part of kind of part of the budget reductions, I just want to make sure that on April 13th, I'm pretty sure that's our next meeting, that that district admin comes with the list of reductions, or at least to start some of them, you know, and um I just don't want to push it out too far where we've you know, essentially, the way that I look at it, I actually I'm not going to say anything cuz it I don't want to Yep. Stay on topic. And you're you're talking about uh specifics for the stipend reductions, correct? Not necessarily. All the different reductions that we talked about. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Any other topic items right now?

175Okay. If there are other things that you remember or come up with, just they can always be added to the spreadsheet um and emailed to um me. That would be perfect. Thank you so much. Uh agenda item seven um yeah, item 7.1, upcoming board meetings. That we We have a board meeting on Monday, April 13th. Then we have the special board meeting on Monday, April 27th and another regular board meeting on Monday, May 11th. Um And we can move on to 8.1 and adjourn this meeting at 7:12 p.m. I mean, when the audience like applaud. I'm like